Does America want Moms to stay at home?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2005
Does America want Moms to stay at home?
987
Mon, 12-12-2005 - 11:28am
It was actually dh that suggested that America (gov't I suppose) wants Moms to stay at home. From what I have learned from these boards daycare is hideously expensive and maternity leave is very short. Many have said they couldn't afford to work because of daycare costs. Compare this to Canada where we have $7 a day daycare and Quebec is increasing maternity leave to 2 years at 55% pay or 1 year at 75% pay in January. With the $7 a day daycare Moms can easily afford to work, and with the paid maternity leave Moms can easily afford to stay home. It seems that in the states you're 'forced' into situations because it's your only option. Can't afford daycare? Stay at home. Maternity leave too short or have to work to support the family? Go back to work. Would any of you prefer if it would be easier financially to make either decision like it seems to be in Canada or are you fine with how it is?

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Image hosted by Photobucket.com


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 1:38pm

I figured you did ;)

Stupid typos.




Edited 12/15/2005 1:43 pm ET by charlesmama1
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2003
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 1:41pm

Meldi
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 1:45pm
I think it would be possible to adequately educate children whether or not their parents give a rat's patootie. It should be.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 1:54pm

<>

Au contraire. The neocons who rule today do not answer to those who might benefit from the minimum wage. Exploitation is exploitation.

<>

Why the heck not? Way cheaper than one week of the Iraq war.

<>

There had better be something we can do. Otherwise who will be the workforce of tomorrow? The federal gov't has been on a massive retreat from progressive social policy for over a generation. It's easier to wash one's hands than to use some imagination.

Whatever the costs of health care reform, they will be as nothing compared to the cost of the current system, where 30 to 40% goes to administrative overhead. Lawsuits are a straw man.

<> Tell that to all the Katrina victims still displaced after 3.5 months. Around here, there's not nearly enough housing for market renters let alone Section 8. Mortgages are for people who qualify, regardless of the terms.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 1:56pm
I agree with you on everything but the minimum wage. Here in CA we see the direct effects of a minimum wage that was raised to $6.75. It helps at first but in a year or two it doesn't make a difference.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 2:12pm
AMEN!
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 2:18pm
You're being idealistic here, CM. Who are a child's first teachers? His parents. Studies show time and again that children with parents who are involved in the school do better in school. Parents who don't care about their child's education are going to have children who don't care about their education. Are there exceptions? Sure. But you can not teach a child who doesn't want to learn.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 2:49pm
But it sucks. Why should we just throw a child out the window so to speak because their parents don't care? Shouldn't the schools be able to at least produce children who can read, spell, and be functional in math even if the parents don't care? You can't teach a child who doesn't want to learn, but you *can* teach a child to want to learn, and it doesn't have to be the parent teaching it. (Well, it does at this point the way our schools are... which is the problem)
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 2:55pm
How are schools supposed to teach when the students come hungry, improperly dressed and with zero discipline?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Thu, 12-15-2005 - 3:07pm
So it's even worse. The ones who are uninsured will show up at the university hospital needing "lifesaving" treatment. They won't be turned away because they are "dying in the ER." The result will be that you (generic) will end up footing the bill for these patients through higher insurance premiums. If they had better care *before* they got that sick (say via universal basic preventive care paid by our tax dollars even if they don't have jobs that pay their insurance) then at the end, it will cost us less.

Pages